[openbeos] Re: Ok, let's start

>So, let's start.

Yes, let's.  I think we should look into aquiring/merging with the 
openbeos.sourceforge.net space and seeding the source tree with Bruno G. 
Albuquerque and Nathan Whitehorn's Mail Daemon Replacement, if they're 
willing.  That'd be one server down, and a bunch more plus a kernel to 
go. ;)

>So, to be successful we need to keep in mind a few things:
>
>* we need binary compatibility from release to release, so companys
>   can produce and sell closes source, this means binary only programs
>   and device drivers!

Agreed.

>* we better add a compatiblity layer, so we can run all current BeOS 
programs
>
>* it may be a wise decision to create a compiler independent binary 
format,
>   so we don't need to break compatiblity if the gcc compiler breaks 
compatibility   ,
>   since we can't break our compatiblity

If we can firmly establish the project as a true replacement for R5 with 
a future ahead of it, we can probably coax the community to move to gcc 
3.x.  If nothing else, we can do what Be wouldn't do and version the 
libs.  Or even go with the good ideas you have here -- just later.  
Getting up and running as quickly as possible should be our foremost 
concern, otherwise the userbase and community might fade out on us.  
Strike while the iron is hot and all that. =)

>* i think we should use the beos kernel approach, this means 
independent modules 
>   which are all loaded at boot time, and those who find hardware keep 
loaded.
>   You really don't want a single large kernel you need to constantly 
recompile!

I think we're talking about basically reimplementing the OS, so this is 
probably a given.  If nothing else, this architecture is definitely one 
of the cooler aspects of BeOS.

>Some legal things:
[stuff re. GPL]

As much as I admire what the GNU folks have accomplished, I find the, 
uh, "enthusiasm" of their userbase a bit hard to take at times.  I'm in 
favor of a more liberal license -- Mozilla, BSD, maybe OpenTracker; 
something along those lines.

e

Data is not information, and information is not knowledge: knowledge is 
not understanding, and understanding is not wisdom.
        - Philip Adams

Other related posts: